This morning the online publication Ethika Politika, the journal of the Center for Morality in Public Life, published my response to a previous article by Thomas Storck on natural law and political engagement. In his article, Storck contents that though the natural law exists as a rationally accessible, universal standard of justice, due to the disordered passions of our fallen condition political engagement on the basis of natural law is all but fruitless. Instead, he mends a renewed emphasis on evangelism, emphasizing that the change of heart es through conversion is a far more effective way to effect social change and, in his view, necessary before any political change will realistically happen. In my article today, I respond,

While I am sensitive to Storck’s insistence that evangelism deserves renewed zeal for the sake of moral progress in society, I feel his opposition of evangelism rather than political action (or, more accurately, evangelism then political action) is ultimately harmful. In particular, there would seem to be no vocation for the Christian as citizen or civil servant today, no vital service that he/she has to offer to the kingdom of God now in his/her civic capacity before such a widespread evangelization has taken place.

I focus my response to Storck mainly on the relationship between the natural law and the positive law of the state, but the above quote contains something that I would like to pursue a little further.

I think that there is a danger among those, like myself, who in general support more limited government to develop a pessimism toward everything government related and toward those who work in politics in general. Sometimes this is, in fact, justified. It seems like every year there is a new story of a politician misappropriating funds, taking bribes, soliciting prostitution, etc. Certainly that sort of news would make anyone pessimistic. But I would caution that we need to try our best to reign it in. People, including politicians, will rise to the standards that others hold for them. If we resign ourselves to the idea that all politicians are corrupt (even if that is true), we will leave little room for honest (or relatively honest) ones to maintain their integrity. After all, if the consequence of corruption is simply that one will have fallen to the expected status quo, there is really no cost in doing so, making it an even greater temptation.

I would submit that, instead, we need to remember that even politicians have a vocation for the kingdom of God and mon good. We really do need them. We need good people to struggle daily to make more just laws in the sweat of their brows among the thorns and thistles of the political climate and moral ecology of our fallen world.

Furthermore, as I note in my Ethika Politika article today, doing so does not always look like we want it to. Rather than unswerving adherence to the ideal, we need politicians who work to make practical advances toward it, even if that means less than optimal results. We may want someone who promises any principles, but, to me, such a politician is equivalent to a farmer who would refuse to work such a thorn-infested land due to their strong stance against thorns. What is the result of such an attitude? A failure to bear fruit. Through inaction, no crops would be saved from the stranglehold of the spreading weeds. It is a heavy burden, a hard vocation, but we need people who are willing to heed the call, go out into the thorn-infested field of American politics, and get their hands dirty.